[ laughing ] of course you will. and the loophole that he uses, i'm not negotiating over the debt ceiling. i'm negotiating over the sequester. what do you think of sequestration? >> first of all, sequesters is not something that i propose. it's something that congress has proposed. it will not happen. >> cenk: wait a minute. the sequester has defense cuts. that's not a bad thing. that's a progressive thing. but it's not going to happen. in the next round of negotiations i'm telling you right now he's going to put medicare and/or social security on the table. i'm ready to drop a preemptive elbow on obama's head. so in the ring for the first time, and there you go. it's coming. i guarantee it. "the young turks." [ ♪ music ♪ ]

>> eliot: good evening i'm eliot spitzer, and this "viewpoint." the so-called fiscal cliff was finally surmounted tuesday night as the polithouse g.o.p. joined democrats in a bill that will avert steep tax heights for most americans and postpone major cuts to government programs. but the bill also guarantees lots more political drama in the weeks to come as the house republicans threaten to use a debt ceiling vote to extract cuts in social programs from the congressional democrats and the white house. tuesday's vote in the white house saw just 85 republicans join 172 democrats in supporting the bill that had won overwhelming support in the senate the day before. the bill will hold out tax rates on individuals with incomes that top out at $400,000 a year. to $450,000 a year and extend

unemployment benefits, and extend tax breaks for the low income americans for five years and keep alternative minimum tax from raising taxes on the middle class. president obama said the bill affirmed his campaign promise to change the tax code to help the middle class. he also warned house republicans not to use the debt ceiling vote to force cuts in social programs. >> i will not have another debate with this congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they've already racked up. >> eliot: for more on the fiscal cliff votes that transfixed washington this week i'm joined by vermont's independent senator bernie sanders who voted yes on the fiscal cliff bill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you, japan first. >> eliot: first explain why you came down in favor of this bill that is getting a fair bit of

criticism from both sides of the aisle. >> it was a tough vote, and i would not be honest with you if i said i didn't consider voting no. if we go over the cliff and 5 trillion-dollar is taken out of the economy you're heading into a major recession, more unemployment. the fact that we prevented 99% of americans from paying higher income taxes very important. two million workers will continue to get unemployment benefits. very important. seniors on medicare will be able to walk into the doctor's office and get treated rather than see their doctors get a 27% reduction in their reimbursement rates. those are the reasons why i voted for it. the arguments against it are several fold. two of the main ones are number one, there was an tremendous tax break on estate tax that will benefit the top three-tenths of

1%. that's about $100 billion over a ten-year period. all republicans wanted that and some democrats as well. totally outrageous. second of all we made permanent or at least until congress changes it some very bad proposals within the bush tax breaks of 91 and 93. instead of racing tax raising taxes on dividends we only took it up to 20%. by and large the president wanted $1.6 trillion in new revenue. this comes out at about $620 billion. which takes us to where your introduction leads us. and that is the republicans are very clear that as the debt ceiling a approaches, their demand

will be cuts in veterans, social security medicare, medicaid, and nutrition programs vitally needed by americans' working and middle class. >> eliot: you perfectly stated the equation. i probably would have come down on the other side because it seems to me that the risk inherent in the negotiation were about to undertake with the republicans on the debt ceiling is so fraught that i worry that the 620 trillion-dollar in revenue that the president got may not be worth the price and maybe he could have gotten more revenue and get the republicans to say yes to the debt ceiling if he applied more pressure after we had gone off the cliff even if for a previous period of time. >> i certainly agree he should have applied more pressure. as you know, it's no great secret any more. the reason why the negotiations were taken away from harry reid and given to joe biden is not

any great personality conflict, but that reid was tougher on a number of issues. >> eliot: that's exactly right. reid was saying we have given what we can give, and the white house wanted to give more. when the white house was willing to put the laddered cpi on the table even without getting a debt ceiling agreement. that step, and that chess move completely mystified me. at the end of the day as you pointed out that was not in the deal but it was systemic of their willingness to give without getting. >> it's no great secret that in the last three major negotiations the republicans won decisively. i think it's probably fair to say that while it is absolutely true that the president and the democrats should have negotiated tougher, they could have gotten a lot more, i think certainly they did better than they did in the previous three. >> eliot: right. >> the question is what happens now? and eliot your concerns and

where you end up coming out is certainly not irrational. i think what we have going for us are a couple of facts. as we go into these debt ceiling negotiations and that is, number one you know what, i would not want to be a republican going home to my district or my state saying, you know what, i am not going to support real tax reform when one out of four major corporations is not paying a nickeling in taxes, when we're losing 100 trillion-dollar every year because they're stashing money in the cayman island. i'm not going to deal with that issue, but i am going to cut your social security, your medicare and your medicaid. i, myself, would not want to defend that position back home. i'm not unconvinced that we cannot win this battle. >> eliot: look you're right analytically and rationally. the other side has not always

acted rationally. they've gone back to the public when they were dead wrong and extracted things from the white house that she should not. we're both worried about what comes next in the debt ceiling negotiation. we got to make sure that the white house is toughened they do not concede where they shouldn't. we may disagree on this vote one time, but you're still my hero. i'll move to vermont so i can vote for you one day. thanks for coming on the program. >> thank you el . >> eliot: with the view from the house, i'm joined by congressman brad miller from north carolina, who voted no on this cliff bill. thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me on. >> eliot: you just heard senator sanders who just made the best case for the yes vote. explain why you voted against it and what will happen next as we enter into the uncertainty of the debt ceiling negotiation. >> i think you and bernie saunders already had a great discussion, and i agree with all

of his concerns on both sides. it was a close vote for me, too. i came down on the other side. ultimately i decided not only was it not a particularly good deal just on the task part of it, but it really left us defensive about the arguments that are to come in the next few months on the sequestration which was postponed a couple of months. the debt ceiling and the continued resolution, the usual funding bills that congress has to pass. i think that everything that we salvage out of this is still at risk including social security and medicare. >> eliot: i want to quote a statement you put out today but i want you to explain what you mean by defenseless. we already played our negotiating cards in terms of tax cuts. we only got $20 billion in

revenue. and you said this bill makes mindless cuts to programs important in the middle class inevitable. explain why that is? >> well, the bill now makes permanent, as bernie sanders said not just temporary tax cuts to help along an economy that is struggling but makes permanent a tax system that does not bring in enough revenue to pay for what most americans including me, think are core government functions. we're going to see the cbo the congressional budget officest office estimate of what this does, and we'll see that used as an excuse to make deep, painful cuts in programs that americans can't imagine are at risk. we'll see the me ladrama that we

saw over the debt ceiling and the shutting down of government, we're going to see that, and it will be more damaging to the middle class. >> eliot: the overarching strategy when they enacted the bush tax cuts was to deny the revenue to fund the programs you just referred to, then the democratic president has just exceeded that strategy by making permanent the tax cuts and saying there simply won't be enough revenue to fund anything other than social security medicaid, the defense department, nothing else. that's what the president becomes, that limited. that's what you're referring to in your statement, which is spot on i think. >> i'm sure you've seen the figures in the last new days, we're spending gdp in

government, which is a little high, because revenues are lower, we're spending more because programs like unemployment compensation and more people qualify for medicaid so on. expenditures go up in tough times. but its likely even if the economy recovers and does better we'll only get 18% of gdp in tax collection and that's not enough to cover basic government. for seniors in social security, medicare, on and on, veterans, military retirees, on and on. >> eliot: the reason why we're running the deficit right now is because spending went up 21% to 22% of gdp but then revenues want down from 19 to 15 what we've done in this tax bill, i don't think we'll get to 15 the revenue probably won't get to

17% of gdp and the deficit of the gdp is not sustainable and that means government will shrink beyond what rational folks like you and i will agree to. i'm not quite sure why the president in his grand scheme in consension of government agreed to this deal. how do you see the debt ceiling play out in the next couple of weeks. >> well, in the next couple of months. it won't come to a good end. if the president holds firm as he said he would he said that in the past as well, then i think it's possible to follow on our debt. we'll get to the debt ceiling and not extend it, which we've never done. the constitution prohibits for forbids. if you want to talk about how the market will react what it will do to the economy that, will do more damage than letting the bush tax cuts expire.

>> eliot: it will be very hard but we asked for that second round of negotiation by not forcing them to raise the debt cereal. >> bernie sanders said that the initialthepresident's initial demand was $1.6 trillion in additional revenues as part of the deal. boehner's response was $800 billion. only half. it ended up being $600 billion. >> eliot: right. >> most people would have thought--all my negotiating and experience in negotiations is if one said side starts higher, then lower, you end up in between. if you have a lawyer who settled a case for you and you came in lower than the offer of the other side you may think you need another lawyer. >> eliot: you will "g" to the white house and negotiate for them next time. retiring democrat congressman

brad miller from north carolina, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> eliot: what is hiding in the details of this agreement that's coming up. coming on to me all the time now. (vo) she gets the comedians laughing and the thinkers thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. you would rather deal with ahmadinejad than me. >>absolutely. >> and so would mitt romney. (vo) she's joy behar. >>and the best part is that current will let me say anything. what the hell were they thinking? [ ryon ] eating shrimp at red lobster is a fantastic experience. 30 shrimp for $11.99. i can't imagine anything better. you're getting a ton of shrimp and it tastes really good! [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's 30 shrimp for just $11.99! choose any two of five savory shrimp selections like mango jalapeño shrimp and parmesan crunch shrimp. two delicious shrimp selections on one plate! all with salad and unlimited cheddar bay biscuits. 30 shrimp, just $11.99 for a limited time. wow, that's a lot of shrimp.

i'm ryon stewart i'm the ultimate shrimp lover, and i sea food differently.

these talking points, that the right have, about the "heavy hand of government" ... i want to have that conversation. let's talk about it. really? you're going to lay people off because now the government is going to help you fund your healthcare. really? i want to have those conversations, not to be confrontational, but to understand what the other side is saying, and i'd like to arm

our viewers with the ability to argue with their conservative uncle joe over the dinner table. >> eliot: americans rejoiced last night when they heard the news they would never have to hear the phrase fiscal cliff again. but while congress reached a deal that was welcomed by most, it was unclear what was involved in the deal and why the taxes will be wally by $1,200. the sequestration and debt ceiling both being punted down the road, it looks like the fiscal fight has just begun. with the nuts and bolts i'm joining by joe wiesenthal. what does this all mean? the president went out and did a press conference saying 99% of the public will have their tax gas down. wasn't he wrong? >> it's a funny thing where you can decide if it's a tax cut or tax increase relative to what

people paid in 2012. they'll be paying a little more due to the expiration of the payroll tax holiday. on the other behind all these taxes were going to increase no matter what. so compared to what people would pay with no deal, that's a deal. >> eliot: that's a linguistic game. with everything expired it would have been worse than it is now. but now people's taxes will be going up. the payroll tax is going back up to 6.2%. >> correct. >> eliot: is that a good thing or bad thing in economics. >> it's a bad thing. with the economy still fragile it's getting better, and the trajectory is higher, but it's better to have people have more take-home pay. >> eliot: what confuses me as a matter of economics since right now we want to put money in the pockets of the middle class this 2% tax increase, i think

that's how you got to view the middle class, it was not even being discussed. >> that was one of the really frustrating things. obama throw it out. remember he had that initial offer that all the republicans laughed at he wanted the stimulus and the end of the debt ceiling permanently one angle is that the aarp was really against the continuation of the payroll tax holiday. the reason is because that's less money going into social security. and although that technically doesn't change anything, the less money that comes into via the payroll taxes, the more it looks like social security is creating a deficit problem and thus the more exposed it is. >> eliot: the payroll tax funds the social security. so you want that trust fund to be there and to be solvent. but this is a recessive tax. the poor pay much more than the

wealthy. so it is bad because it's not stimulative to take the money out of the pockets of the middle class. but with congress there was no reservoir of support extending the payroll tax cut. >> yeah, i think people really didn't understand it, but yeah, look i think clearly there isn't much support--i mean, tax cuts are mainly--the g.o.p. normally supports every tax cut there is. >> eliot: right. >> however they're not so crazy on temporary tax cuts for the middle class that looks like stimulus. that's where it is. it's a tax cut normally supported by the right but it's temporary and looks like stimulus. >> eliot: but it struck me as bizarre that the president didn't use it as a stimulus. the republicans are only interested in raising one tax that's on you on the middle class. they're fighting tooth and nail for the millionaires but they're trying to raise your taxes.

>> i think this is part of what frustrates people with obama, he doesn't make those arguments forcefully enough. he doesn't seem to be good at laying out the stakes, and then really convincing anyone to change their mind. in the end the deal was not that terrible. did he get taxes to rise on the rich and that was considered a breakthrough. >> eliot: but let me stop you. $620 billion over ten years. >> that's not that much revenue. >> eliot: it's hard to be dismissive of $620 billion. >> we all know how little that is. >> cenk: it barely moves the needle in terms of deficit reduction. >> the way that i think people should think about raising taxes on the risk, it's true, that's not that much. use more about the tax code for progressive outcome in that context it's not horrible. >> eliot: it isn't horrible, but it seems to me when i tried to step back and make sense of all this. when the democratic party, we

were consumed by the fairness argument and said we need to raise taxes on the rich rather than focusing on the need for revenue in the long run that would fund the government. >> the problem is if you're going to talk about the need for revenue then you have to be honest and say that middle class taxes need to rise, too. and it would not be good economics-- >> eliot: at this moment. >> because of that it had to be about the fairness argument. but honestly at some point if there is a serious push towards trying to match up revenue with expenditures, this is something that romney's adviser said now that the campaign is over, he can say it. >> eliot: that's right he's in transition. >> he said, let's be honest, we may have to raise tax. >> eliot: funny after november the honesty comes out of the woodwork. joe wisenthal, thank you for joining us. did congress just agree to an un

uncertain future?

our conversation is with you the viewer because we're independent. >>here's how you can connect with "viewpoint with eliot spitzer." >>questions, of course, need to be answered. >>we will not settle for the easy answers. >> eliot: after the glorious talk of the grand bargain and the fearsome conversation about the fiscal cliff, washington lawmakers could not live up to the hype and manage to settle what they do best, a tepid agreement that manages only to kick the can down the road. and not that far. in only two months we'll be right back to the precipice of a fiscal cha ma'amty with the sequestration cuts and they'll also have to vote to raise the debt ceiling. for those who think that will happen easily or peacefully must have been asleep the last few months. adam smith who voted against the fiscal cliff agreement

yesterday. congressman, thanks for joining us. first explain why you voted against it. explain why you voted no. >> your opening statement explained one big reason, it doesn't do anything. we're two months, sequestration looms over all discretionary spending. i'm on the armed services committee, so i pay particular attention to the defense, but i the programs that will go the next two months without any idea of how much money they're going to have. it didn't do anything on that, and then worse it locked in place, made permanent 90% of the bush tax cuts. are the house republicans seriously going to put revenue on the table as we deal with the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling? the size of the cuts to critical programs to deal with the

deficit now that we locked in 90% of the bush tax cuts is way beyond what i can accept. >> eliot: you're exactly right. it's an argument that it's mystifying to me that more democrats didn't stand up and say this isn't efficient. we only get the revenue over the ten years. it's quite small that the gerald government is considering and in return to that we locked in 90% of the bush tax cuts denying the government the revenue needed for progressive purposes. i'm mystified by this calculous. >> i am, too. because republicans were screaming about it, gosh, if they don't like it, it must be good for us. but we were wrong about that. keep in mind, this is probably the largest tax cut in history because it lumped all the bush

tax cuts done over a two-or three-year period, and all about a tiny percentage of them we made permanent. keep in mind they expired. they expired before we took this vote. we were voting to cut taxes at the same time this we were wringing our hands in concern of what might happen to entitlements, what will happen to education and infrastructure. well, if you don't have the revenue, if you don't have the money to financed these fund these programs you can't say you're standing up and fighting for them. >> eliot: the republicans could come back and say unless you cut your running up deficits that are that much greater and you have an imperative to cut the indictments which we don't want to do, and we've locked in a government without revenue sufficient that is necessary. i'm mystified and your point was taken that the republicans will

not put revenue back on the table over the next few months. >> i cannot imagine that happening. when you're looking at the side of our debt and deficits long term, once we begin to have the economy start to recover, and we're trying to figure out how to get the debt and deficit under control we'll have to figure out ways to reduce spending. but how much more spending are we going to have to reduce now that we've done a $3.5 trillion tax cut. it's a question of choice. i do not want to cut those programs. i'll stand up and say that honestly. if i don't want to cut those programs then i can't vote for tax cuts to take away the revenues necessary to fund them. >> eliot: what you're say something that the government over the next 10 to 15 years the percentage of gdp dedicated to non-defense discretionary spending will continue to go down education justice the programs that matter so much, that make ourselves more competitive down the road and

building society. what will sequestration be two months from now. >> i have a hard time imagining that it won't happen. what is the deal that republicans and democrats will be able to vote for that will prevent it? we'll lock in those draconian across-the-board cuts. the size of them is bad enough, but then they're across the board. there is no strategy. it's nonsensical. there is no plan attached to them. every plan is cut by the same amount and what are the republicans going to do on the debt ceiling? can you imagine bringing up for a vote the increase in the debt ceiling? i think it's a real problem. the only leverage we had were all of those bush tax cuts sun setting, and we gave it away. >> eliot: i could not agree with you more. when the president agreed to a deal that did not resolve the debt ceiling, we were screaming

you can't do this. he said they'll negotiate in good faith on the debt ceiling. they didn't then. they won't this time. i can't see them negotiating in good faith on the debt ceiling i'm deeply troubled. your point congressman, across the board cuts of equal order magnitude and you're the first to say that. >> if i can give you one ray of hope. the republicans are mindful of the fact that they got blamed of the debacle that just happened. and they're mindful of the fact if we shut down the government it runs out by the end the march as well. they know if they don't raise the debt ceiling if they don't fund the government past that point, they will get blamed. it will be interesting to see how they try to weasel out of that while adhering to the bizarre principle ever raising

no revenue and hoping to simply cut as much spending without putting specifics on the table what those spending cuts would be. it will be interesting to see how they deal with the political reality. >> eliot: i'm glad on january 2nd there is still a ray of hope, although that ray may disappear and go behind a car very shortly. congressman adam smith, thank you for your wisdom on these issues. >> thank you. >> eliot: do the pluses outway the minuses. morning the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. morning

>> eliot: the 112th congress mayhave ended on a note of sound and fury but as shakespeare said it might have signified nothing. barbara lee of california, a member of the house budget committee, congresswoman, as

always, thank you for joining us. >> happy to be with you eliot. >> eliot: a lot of excitement at the end of the session. you voted for the fiscal cliff agreement. explain to us why what you saw in it, and what you're worried about it that might have made you hesitate? >> eliot, clearly this was not a perfect bill. i voted for it because i believed that the positive and good parts of this bill outweighed what i considered some of the very question aspects of it. i voted for it, first of all i could not allow the 2 million people who are on unemployment compensation continue to fall over this fiscal cliff. they're living on the edge, and i worked very hard with my colleagues to improve the unemployment combination.

i wanted to see the $250,000 tax cuts. we had to go with $400,000. people wanted $250,000, but what we heard over and over again the american people want us to compromise. thirdly, we have very good provisions for the earned income tax credit child tax credit, and credits that help lower income individuals as it relates to students who go to college. over all this is one of the largest--i would say it wasn't a tax hike for only, what, 2%. this was a tax decrease for 98% of the american people. over all it was a bill i could vote for. it was a bill, however that i knew was not perfect, as you mentioned i'm on the budget and appropriations committee and

this round of budget cuts will take place as we move towards the two-month period of sequestration. let me say for a while there were provisions that had about proposed to change the cost of living formula for medicare recipients. we ended up with no cuts and benefits to social security, medicare medicaid. we're going to stand firm on that as we move towards the two-month period. there are many things in this bill that allowed me to vote for it. but of course there were many things that caused me a lot of angst and wish it had been different. >> eliot: congresswoman, you make a persuasive case. i can't say that i agree with you, but i want to say something in your favor. congressman bernie frank always said compared to what. you just listed some critically important accomplishments in this bill. the unemployment benefits in

particular. what worries me is something that is not dealt with in the bill which is the debt ceiling. what worries me at the structural level is now we're going to go into a negotiation where we have to raise the debt ceiling. the republicans will hold the nation hostage to that obligation as they did last year and we've given away our negotiating power by conceding all the revenue pieces we're going to get. why didn't the president say to the republicans, if you want this bill, you must agree now to raise the debt ceiling. that seems to be the most dangerous missing element here. >> well, first of all raising the debt cereal something a given. 26 times this debt ceiling has been lifted under democrats and republican presidents. this should not be an issue. the debt ceiling should be raised period. we have to pay our bills. and eliot, you know the

president under the constitution, i believe it's the 14th amendment has the authority to raise the debt ceiling any way. this should not be on the table. we should go on and the wednesday andrepublicans and democrats should come together and raise the debt ceiling. >> eliot: you're right it should not be but i fear it will about because last year where we had a similar situation where one could acknowledge as fair compromise, nonetheless shortly thereafter john boehner did what i think he's going to do in the next two months which is to say now you got a debt ceiling you got to raise. you're not going to let the nation default therefore you will concede to us all the cuts that we withstood in this negotiation, now he's going to have us in a toughing negotiating posture. while you're right it shouldn't

be an issue but i'm afraid it will be. maybe we should have waited a few more days and let the republicans take the heat for going over the cliff and say you now got to give us the debt cereal, or there is no deal. >> eliot, the american people are not going to tolerate this. the election versus consequences. what has taken place is horrendous. people get it. they're not going to let that happen we're going to fight like crazy to make sure that the president uses his authority without using the debt ceiling as part of a deal. >> eliot: that's where we should end up. i'm with you on the 14th amendment, although the white house has said it doesn't want to. you'll be in the majority and pass a bill that gives the president that authority. then we won't have to worry about all these tough issues. congressman barbara lee, thank you for joining us this evening. >> thank you, happy to be here

with you. >> eliot: happy new year. john fugelsang is filling in for joy, john? >> thank you eliot. on today tonight tonight's say anything. what youwe'll talk to the director of a fascinateing new documentary "celebrity," and we'll weigh in on kim kardashian's important star. >> it's the greatest show in america. tonight, the focus on the fiscal cliff, and the number one topic on everyone's mind, justin bieber on "say anything" more "viewpoint" after this. honest. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us.

>> eliot: i've said it before. facts matter. >> one 9 of the reasons why things don't get done, an example. after the shooting in newtown connecticut fiscal cliff talk has all but eliminated gun control discussion. mr. la pierre said that we needed more guns in this country, specifically an armed guard in every school. >> i'm telling you what i think will keep people safe.

when we have a police officer in every school. that's one thing we can do immediately that will immediately make our children safe. my gosh, people in the media i revere their communication skills but they have an obligation to be factual and truthful. >> eliot: i couldn't agree more. facts matter so here are some facts. in chicago there have already been three gun-relateed homicide since new year's eve. here in new york city between the ball dropping in times square at midnight and 7:00 a.m. that same morning six people were shot in separate gun-related incidents. and none of these incidents nor most of the other shootings occurring each and every day would be prevented by the presence of an armed guard in schools. we promised we would not stop talking about this issue until meaningful gun control legislation is passed, and aiding more guns to our already violent society is not a meaningful proposal. there are 8,000 new members joining the nra each day.

but the more important point is that over 70% of nra members believe in common sense gun control legislation including reinstating the assault weapons ban and limiting the capacity of magazines. time for the nra membership to stand up and say wayne la pierre is not the sole voice of the nra. when we're talking about life and death, fax matter thinking. >>ok, so there's wiggle room in the ten commandments, that's what you're saying. (vo) she's joy behar. >>current will let me say anything.

@ñhd